Did Mary get baptized? Did she even need to?

[Tis_Bearself]

Actually, its unsettled and undefinable by scripture alone. Some Church Fathers trace it to Jesus merely entering the waters with John, and others claim it was the command to go forth and baptize.

Good points.
Also, Jesus definitely instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist prior to Pentecost. So it would have been possible to institute the sacrament of Baptism prior to the beginning of the Church.

If Jesus baptized one or more Apostles then that would have happened prior to Pentecost. Although like I said it’s also possible that God provided for the baptisms in another way, which wouldn’t have required institution of the sacrament.

It’s all very unclear.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Scripture is silent on the issue, and as far as I am aware, Sacred Tradition is likewise silent.

I want to say that she probably was baptized, but there’s no way to know. It makes sense that she would have been — even though she didn’t need it for salvation — and it makes little sense that she would not have been. How could the Mother of the Church not receive the sacrament that makes one a member of that Church?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

As far as I know according to the laws in the Torah, Mary would have been “baptized” before Jesus was even born. The practice of tevilah , immersion of the entire body in water for the purpose of removing ritual impurity was part of the Levitical law

Yes, but this is not Baptism as the Church defines it, nor would it have had anything to do with preceding Confirmation, which is receiving the Holy Spirit, which confirms the grace of the Spirit already given you at Baptism.

Those who underwent Jewish ritual baptism didn’t receive any grace from the Holy Spirit, nor were they admitted into the Church as a result of their Jewish ritual baptism.

Mary and Jesus both underwent various Jewish rituals that they didn’t technically need, being observant Jewish people out of obedience and reverence to God.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

How could the Mother of the Church not receive the sacrament that makes one a member of that Church?

I tend to think God provided for this either at the time of her conception or when she shared in Jesus’ Passion and Death, so she didn’t need a water baptism either way. And obviously it had nothing to do with removing her original sin as she never had any.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Mary and Jesus both underwent various Jewish rituals that they didn’t technically need, being observant Jewish people out of obedience and reverence to God.

Yes, and that is part of my reasoning as well (though I didn’t bring that part out).

Again, I tend to think that she would have been baptized, but we know that she is in heaven, that she is our Mother, and that she was always perfectly pleasing to Almighty God. So it really doesn’t matter. If Our Lord had wanted us to know this one way or the other, He would have told us, either in Scripture or Tradition.

 

[Lucy_1]

Those who underwent Jewish ritual baptism didn’t receive any grace from the Holy Spirit,

Well, we don’t know this for sure. But I see what you mean-- you’re specifically talking about the sacrament of baptism.

Jesus’ own baptism by John the Baptist was a little different, in that John’s baptisms were for the removal of sins in the Jewish ritual tradition. They were not the sacrament of Baptism as the gateway sacrament to Confirmation.

But isn’t Jesus’ baptism when the sacrament was established?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

But isn’t Jesus’ baptism when the sacrament was established?

There’s a question about that, dscath already mentioned that and I’m not sure if that’s correct based on the Catechism and past discussions. I tagged our two posting priests in hopes one of them will post here and resolve the question of when the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted - was it at Jesus’ Baptism or was it at/ after Pentecost.

In any event, the baptisms given by John the Baptist were not the Christian sacrament of baptism.

 

[ThomasMT]

I wonder if there is any mention it this in “Mystical City of God.”

 

[StudentMI]

Speaking of books to read…

 

[TMC]

I find it problematic to try to reflect back our current understanding and practices of the Sacraments to biblical figures. And why does it even matter?

 

[Mark121359]

We know that the Virgin submitted herself in humility and obedience to the Old Law of Moses, which required purification 40 days after childbirth. Even though she was as pure as the driven snow. Likewise, she most certainly could’ve received the sacraments of the New Law. Did she need to be baptized? No. But It certainly is no stretch to believe that she most certainly would want to be, since the Sacrament was instituted by her Son. She was the first Christian, and she was destined to be the mother of us all.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I wonder if there is any mention it this in “Mystical City of God.”

That’s getting into “Unapproved Private Revelations” so we can’t talk about it here per TOS.
I will check that offline when I have a chance though.

I find it problematic to try to reflect back our current understanding and practices of the Sacraments to biblical figures. And why does it even matter?

I’d like to know the correct response for the next time some Protestant with a “Mary problem” asks, or even for when some fellow Catholic asks.

If the correct response is “not sure but there’s a bunch of different theories” I’d like to know that too.

Also, “Why does it even matter?” is subjective. This topic interests me, Mary and Mariology in general interest me. There are probably 1,245 other topics on this forum that I don’t think matter, but they matter to the person who posted them.

 

[TMC]

Also, “Why does it even matter?” is subjective. This topic interests me, Mary and Mariology in general interest me. There are probably 1,245 other topics on this forum that I don’t think matter, but they matter to the person who posted them.

I agree it is interesting. I just don’t think it matters, really. Mary is sui generis. We can’t say she was baptized because there is no record of that happening. We can’t say that she must have been baptized because there is no “must” with God, and Mary’s unique situation may be something different than what we know or can understand.

More broadly, I don’t like trying to scrub through the Scriptural record and apply our current understanding of things like Sacraments to people who never heard of or thought about such a thing. To try to shoe-horn our modern series of Sacraments (Baptism, Confession, Communion, Confirmation, (maybe Marriage, maybe Ordination), Last Rites) into a setting and worldview that did not look at the world that way doesn’t make sense and can lead into various errors.

 

[OldCAFMember]

I was also taught that John the Baptist was also “baptized” (original sin removed) in utero when he leapt in his mother’s womb upon sensing the presence of Mary pregnant with Jesus.

This is the Church’s understanding. Though it is not explicitly taught as a dogma, the Church has anciently understood this about John. This is why his nativity is celebrated on 24 June as his primary feast. The Church celebrates the nativity only of Our Lord, Our Lady, and St. John Baptist for this reason. In lists of the saints, such as the litany of saints, or the Confiteor in the traditional Mass, St. John is mentioned after Our Lady (and before St. Joseph, if he is included).

John’s birthday is called the Summer Christmas, as his nativity occurs around the time of the summer solstice, the longest day of the year. From that point through Christmas, which occurs near the winter solstice, the days get shorter. John’s light becomes smaller until the Lord arrives, then the Lord’s light makes the days longer.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t like trying to scrub through the Scriptural record and apply our current understanding of things like Sacraments to people who never heard of or thought about such a thing. To try to shoe-horn our modern series of Sacraments (Baptism, Confession, Communion, Confirmation, (maybe Marriage, maybe Ordination), Last Rites) into a setting and worldview that did not look at the world that way doesn’t make sense and can lead into various errors.

The problem with that viewpoint is, the Church takes the position that Church teaching has not changed, and that applies also to the Sacraments.

The Church holds that Baptism is required before any other Sacrament can be received. If somebody says, “Yeah but what about the Apostles, there’s nothing in Scripture where they were baptized” then from an apologetics standpoint, we need to be able to respond to that in some way other than “We can’t apply current Church teaching to Biblical figures, even those who started the Church.”

 

[Genesis315]

However, Mother Mary was unique in that she had no original sin, ever - so did she even need to be baptized? Or could she just proceed straight to confirmation (Pentecost)?

St. Vincent Ferrer in one of his Christological sermons says that even though the Blessed Virgin and St. John the Baptist were previously sanctified, they were baptized (or at least asked for baptism, in St. John’s case) to receive the indelible mark, the seal of Christ, which elsewhere he explains is the name of Christ on the forehead mentioned in the book of Revelation:

It may be asked why the Baptist sought baptism since he had been cleansed and sanctified in his mother’s womb, and so he had no need of further cleansing as we read in St. Luke (1. 15): ‘And he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb.’ My answer is he desired the Character or seal, and the beauty that he knew would be given by Baptism, since he also knew well that he was sanctified, not stained by sin. Therefore he said to Christ: ‘I ought to be baptised by thee.’ It is supposed, for the same reason, that the Virgin was baptised, although conceived immaculate; the Apostles also were baptised, as St. Augustine says (Epist 108). The holy prophets did not receive this seal, this beauty. So, in heaven you will be able to distinguish: this man was baptised, this was not.

 

[TMC]

The problem with that viewpoint is, the Church takes the position that Church teaching has not changed, and that applies also to the Sacraments.

I am not sure this is exactly correct. Even it if were, I am not sure it would apply.

The Church may well teach that the Sacraments are eternal. (I am not certain without looking it up, but that seems right.) But the Church has not always administered all of the Sacraments the same way, or at all. So why would try to force the current ideas of the Sacraments back onto a time before they were administered as they are now?

The Church holds that Baptism is required before any other Sacrament can be received. If somebody says, “Yeah but what about the Apostles, there’s nothing in Scripture where they were baptized” then from an apologetics standpoint, we need to be able to respond to that in some way other than “We can’t apply current Church teaching to Biblical figures, even those who started the Church.”

I think we have to also respect history and reality. Even assuming we can claim with any kind of certainty that biblical figures were formal members of the Catholic Church (which is a whole other discussion), the truth is that we can’t apply current Church teaching to people who lived before the Church even had that teaching. I don’t see anything particularly controversial about that.

 

[Victoria33]

Biblical Scholar Cornelius a Lapide indicates Christ baptized Mary. See web references.

 

[ReaderT]

so did she even need to be baptized? Or could she just proceed straight to confirmation (Pentecost)?

I want to say that she probably was baptized, but there’s no way to know. It makes sense that she would have been — even though she didn’t need it for salvation

Just to tug on this thread a little more: what did Mary need for salvation then, in the Catholic understanding? If she didn’t have original (or any other) sin, did she even “need” a Savior? Wouldn’t she have just gone to Heaven as she was?

(For what it’s worth, Easterners say of course the Theotokos was baptized and did need a savior)

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Just to tug on this thread a little more: what did Mary need for salvation then, in the Catholic understanding? If she didn’t have original (or any other) sin, did she even “need” a Savior? Wouldn’t she have just gone to Heaven as she was?

Well, even baptized need savior. Simple absence of Original Sin does not mean we deserve Heaven.